Introduction

This page presents additional analysis of survey data collected by the Ecuadorian Red Cross (ERCS) in early 2023, covering questions around trust as part of the Community Trust Index project.

Sampling and Coverage

The sampling employed a convenient sampling approach focused on large parts of the country in Ecuador.

Demographic data

For the following demographic data, we show the full data set including people who indicated to volunteered for the ERCS as well as those who benefited from the ERCS.

!!!! ATTENTION FOR THE COMMENT !!! in this data set there are no volunteers

Age and gender

TO CHANGE

Compared to the overall Argentinian population, in the sample women, especially younger women are over-represented, while elderly people are under-represented.

Education data

Employment

The sample’s demographic composition on employments status seems to indicate that people interviewed have a much higher rate of unemployment than the average of the country, which had an unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 and labor force participation rate of 68.5% in the same year according to the World Bank data.

Distribution of mean scores for values and competencies per demographic questions

When looking at the average raw scores for all the competencies and value question, we can produce a number of breakdowns using the presented demographic variables.

Upon analyzing the data, we observe that there are not significant variations in the results based on age, gender, previous beneficiary status or volunteer status. The largest variations we see for the location variable. The province where the survey was conducted plays the largest role in contributing to the variation of the results. However, since the sample allocation per province was done almost proportionally, we do not expect large changes once the weighting has been implemented.

Weighting

To address the deviation of demographic parameters from the overall population, we have utilized a technique called raking. The raking process adjusts the results based on several variables to ensure that our sample reflects the distribution of these variables in the overall population. Here are the variables we considered for raking:

  • Age groups and gender: We used UN data to determine the proportions of different age groups and gender in the population.
  • Provinces: We used 2022 on population per province from the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses
  • Students: we used 2020 data on student population from the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses

Using an appropriate package in R to conduct the raking, we obtained the following results.

While the weighted results have slightly smaller means, on difference only to a minor extend form the un-weighted data, except for the question on openness, where we see a slighlty bigger decrease in the overall mean value.

Weighted Results

Here we are presenting the weighted data obtained through the raking process, which takes into account the variables gender, age groups, province, and full-time student status. It is important to note that this data can be biased due to sampling done at ARCS-organised events in urban areas. Hence it should be considered indicative rather than representative of the entire country. The results on all the competency and value questions range between 2.4 and 2.7 on the 0-3 sclae, except the questions on openness and transparency. This particular low ratings on this questions might warrant further investigation on why survey respondents rank the ARCS lower on these topics.

Results per beneficiaries, volunteers and others

When looking at the sub-groups of people who volunteered and beneficiaries as well as others, we see that people who have received support from the MRCS provide the most positive rating from the three groups. For all questions besides relevance and openness, beneficiaries’ perceptions of the MRCS are the highest compared to the other two groups (the question on relevance and openness were answered slightly higher by volunteers).

The non-volunteer/beneficiary group, on the other hand provides the lowest ranking among the three groups, except for the question on transparency, where we see volunteers actually having the lowest rating (by a small margin of 0.04 on the 0-3 scale). However, this difference is with the sample size at hand not significant.

total
Respondents 2099
Aid.recipient Other
Respondents 1501 598
Female Male Other.response
Respondents 1083 1000 16
Age.18.to.30 Age.30.to.40 Age.40.to.50 Age.50.to.60 Age.60.and.older
Respondents 678 432 376 292 321